ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.

I. Eulogies
for Masumi Hayashi (Art)

Senate President Gelman noted that the first
item on the Agenda is a Eulogy for Masumi Hayashi that will
be given at next month’s meeting by Professor George Mauersberger.
Arrangements for the Eulogy were not made until last week and
the Eulogist requested time to prepare.

II.
Approval of the Agenda for
the September 13, 2006 Meeting

Acceptance of the Agenda for September 13, 2006 was moved, seconded,
and approved.

III. Approval of the Minutes
of the April 19, 2006 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 19, 2006 meeting was
moved, seconded, and approved.

IV.
Approval of the Minutes of the May 3, 2006 Meeting

Senate
President Gelman reported that the Minutes of the May 3, 2006
meeting were distributed very late. He asked if anyone wanted
to make a motion to postpone this item until the next meeting.
There being no motion to postpone approval of the Minutes
of May 3, 2006, Senate President Gelman asked for a motion
to approve the Minutes. Acceptance of the Minutes of the May
3, 2006 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

V. Senate Nominating Committee

Senate President Gelman stated that Professor Jeffrey Dean would
give the report of the Senate Nominating Committee.

Professor Jeffrey Dean reported that it probably is no secret that
the Nominating Committee did not receive any self nominations or
volunteer nominations. Also, it probably is no secret that the
Nominating Committee was rather slow to spring into action and work
on this situation.Professor Dean thanked everyone who did answer
his calls and listened to his entreaties and he learned that all
of us are very busy. He noted that after talking to a lot of people,
the Nominating Committee pretty much came up with a slate that
was distributed rather late through an email. He then presented the
slate of candidates: Professor Sheldon Gelman for Senate President,
Professor Leo Jeffres for Senate Vice President and Professor Barbara
Hoffman for Senate Secretary. Professor Dean thanked those who were
willing to serve in these offices. He noted that the positive side
of course is that everybody agrees it is important to have officers
and it is important to have faculty participation and for those who
expressed some willingness to serve at a future date, he has noted
those names and will pass them along.

Professor Dean then asked for a motion to approve the slate of
candidates by acclamation. It was moved, seconded and the slate of
candidates for Senate President for a two-year term (Sheldon Gelman,
Law), Senate Vice President for a one-year term (Leo Jeffres, Communication)
and Senate Secretary for a two-year term (Barbara Hoffman, Anthropology)
was approved unanimously.

Senate President Gelman thanked the Nominating Committee and especially
Professor Jeffrey Dean and everyone for re-electing him as the Senate
President.

VI.
Committee Elections

Following formal procedures for nominating candidates for election to the
various committees of the Faculty Senate and other posts, members of Senate
elected the following faculty.

Professor Peter Meiksins reported that last year at the end of the spring
semester, the University Curriculum Committee heard a presentation on recommending
approval of a Minor in Middle Eastern Studies. This is a cross disciplinary
minor exclusively of courses in the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences
although there is no reason why there couldn’t be courses from other
Colleges. There are some that are appropriate. The proposal met with no objection
from the UCC. It seemed to be a very wise proposal that had been worked out
very carefully. There was some external funding solicited and obtained to support
the development of the program. The College has devoted resources to it as
a matter of a strategic decision and the program is basically up and ready
to go so the University Curriculum Committee recommends this program to Senate.
He noted that the description of the proposed program along with its requirements
was included in the packet of meeting materials for today’s meeting.

There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman asked members to vote
on the proposal. The proposed Minor in Middle Eastern Studies was approved
unanimously.

Senate President Gelman stated that if members didn’t consult the amendment
to the Senate Agenda which was circulated on Tuesday, they may be surprised
to see him presenting the next item (University Strategic Planning Committee
Report) instead of Professor Susan Hill. Senate President Gelman briefly explained
the background. As everybody knows, the university strategic planning process
has been underway for a number of years. There was a multi year consideration
of a proposal for a process. The Senate eventually enacted legislation establishing
the process. The University Strategic Planning Committee has been at work consistently
with that legislation for at least one and a half years. Their report was delivered
on time in early September. As we originally envisioned this, the chair of
the University Strategic Planning Committee would conduct a discussion of the
plan which is quite thorough and quite detailed. Upon consideration, the Academic
Steering Committee, with the agreement of the University Strategic Planning
Committee, decided on a different approach to this Senate presentation.

Senate President Gelman reported that the plan describes six goals and various
strategies to implement those goals. As a means of carrying out the strategies,
there are literally hundreds of tactics listed. As might be imagined, the goals
are more general than the strategies and the strategies are more general than
the tactics. The Steering Committee unanimously, and without hesitation, endorsed
the goals and the strategies. There were no objections to any tactics by the
Steering Committee. However, it occurred to the Steering Committee that in
those hundreds of tactics, there would be many that were controversial in the
sense that people would disagree about them and whereas we think there could
be wide-spread, unanimous agreement about goals such as academic excellence,
the particular strategies are a different matter. People, who accept the goal
of academic excellence and accept the strategies by the committee, might have
and certainly could have different views about the tactics. If the Senate wants
to deliberate on each tactic, we don’t think the Strategic Planning process
could move forward in the foreseeable future. The thought the Steering Committee
had was that if you agreed you might think it as an inspiration and if you
don’t agree you wouldn’t use that word, so it wasn’t necessary
for Senate to approve the specific tactics. The strategic planning process
goes forward with the committee examining progress toward the goals. The committee
obviously will consult on the strategies that it has recommended to the Senate
and the Provost but Steering couldn’t see anything that would slow or
prevent or detract in any way from the process. The Steering Committee simply
didn’t take a position on those tactics. So, that is the proposal that
comes from the Academic Steering Committee.

Senate President Gelman went on to say that this is an unusual procedural
mechanism. Steering cannot refer this to a standing committee. Rather, as a
committee of the Senate, Steering is recommending that the Senate ratify the
goals and strategies and also adopt a statement which is in the amended Agenda.
That is the statement that says in our opinion, the strategic planning process
can go forward exactly as envisioned. What we do today would count as a ratification
of a pre-existing legislation. The other two things described in the amendment – briefly,
in the course of the Steering Committee’s discussion, the Strategic Planning
Committee decided to add another tactic. Since we are not ratifying the tactics,
the additional tactic will not be ratified but Steering thought that we should
have the latest version of the report before we acted. Finally, Senate President
Sheldon Gelman noted that there is an explanation in the amendment of why this
is not a discussion item. The members of Steering felt that if there was a
great deal of discussion and disagreement about this, as there well might be,
Steering and the Strategic Planning Committee could take that into account
and come back with a proposal. But, if there was no disagreement or substantial
disagreement either about the goals or the strategies or about the procedures
that Steering is recommending to Senate today, the ratification could take
place today.

Senate President Gelman noted that Professor Susan Kogler Hill is at Senate
today to answer any questions about the goals or the strategies and he (Senate
President Gelman) would be happy to answer questions about the recommendation
of the Academic Steering Committee.

Professor Barbara Hoffman inquired as to what kind of presentation the Academic
Steering Committee received from the Strategic Planning Committee in order
to arrive at the new strategy that is being proposed today.

Senate President Gelman responded that Steering received the report that
Senate received. He stated that the idea for ratification of the goals and
the strategies came from the Academic Steering Committee, not the Strategic
Planning Committee originally. There was no presentation of that sort. Steering
discussed the procedures for ratification for at least an hour and that is
quite a long time. It was approached strategically and reflected on that deeply.
Professor Peter Meiksins, who is a member of Steering, then drafted something.
Professor Susan Hill took that back to her committee and there was serious
discussion in her committee. Steering waited to hear back from Susan Hill,
which was this Monday, and which is why the amendment came out this Monday.
Beyond that, Steering members, like all members of the Senate last year, received
a preliminary version of the strategies and goals that was distributed at the
last meeting and various members of Steering and the Senate last year were
involved in the strategic planning process in a variety of ways. Senate officers
participated in a day long retreat and there were many other opportunities
for Senate members to be involved in the process. But, until the Steering meeting
last Wednesday ( September 6, 2006), no one had considered the possibility
of simply ratifying the goals and the strategies.

Professor Leo Jeffres asked, “If the goals and the strategies are approved
today, what happens next? What would not happen if we delayed it?” Senate
President Gelman responded that his understanding is that in order for the
process to move forward, which means for the Strategic Planning Committee to
take the next steps and begin progress toward the goals and in order to begin
re-deliberating, the plan has to be ratified. It has to be ratified by the
Senate and it has to be ratified by the administration. It has been presented
to the Provost just as it has been presented to Senate. He said that he has
not heard and Professor Susan Hill could not state whether the administration
has ratified the plan. Once both the administration and the Senate ratify the
plan, the Strategic Planning Committee will begin assessing progress. Until
then, they are in suspended animation.

Professor Beth Ekelman mentioned that a lot of people are new on Faculty
Senate this year and they received the meeting packets on Monday. Whether they
had adequate time to really look at the planning document would be questionable.
Senate President Gelman responded that he is only speaking for himself and
not for Steering. He noted that he is sympathetic to that concern and in fact
although the Strategic Planning Committee not only met its own deadline but
met the deadline for circulating materials to Steering, given the length of
the plan, he asked Sue Hill to consider postponing it. Again, that was before
the idea of separating out the tactics occurred to him. His personal view is
that the goals and the strategies are manageable now. But if people don’t
feel that they have had adequate time, of course we don’t have to vote
today.

Professor Sanda Kaufman stated that taken one by one, you can’t argue
with any of these things; they are beautiful and she would want to do them
all. Dr. Kaufman stated that she was concerned a little bit because it seems
that some of them cannot happen simultaneously but it is not reflected in the
report as to what the trade-offs are and what is more important and what is
less important. For instance, it is hard to see how we would do Goal 1 and
Goal 2 simultaneously judging by the metrics because one says we are going
to see increased standards and increased scores and the other says increased
headcount. She stated that they just don’t go together and she was not
sure she understands how they would recommend implementing them.

Senate President Gelman replied that he can only answer from his own understanding.
Some of the tactics are italicized and those are tactics that the committee
thought were unusually important. The word that President Schwartz used to
describe a series of recommendations is prioritize, although that is not a
technically accurate description. Insofar as the plan doesn’t prioritize
each and every tactic, or for that matter, goal, he assumed that this was a
decision taken by the Strategic Planning Committee which would mean that the
University administration and the Senate would not have the guidance of the
Strategic Planning Committee on that point. He also assumed that if there are
going to be tactics as detailed as these, it would have been logically, physically
and mentally impossible to prioritize everything. Senate President Gelman agreed
with Professor Sanda Kaufman. Everything cannot be done and even if the tactics
or goals and strategies were an intention the way Professor Kaufman had described,
the intention would simply be the limit of time. There are not enough faculty
members at the University, he doesn’t believe, to staff every single
advisory committee that the Strategic Planning Committee thinks would be desirable.
He has to say that this is the feature of the plan and he assumed a considered
decision on the committee not to prioritize.

Professor Elizabeth Welfel wondered if the Senate could hear from the committee.
Senate President Gelman asked Professor Susan Hill, Chair of the University
Strategic Planning Committee, if she would like to respond to questions.

Professor Sanda Kaufman stated that it is not the prioritization, it is a
matter of what goals are conflicting.

Professor Susan Hill replied that in this new process, the Strategic Planning
Committee comes back to the Senate every fall. This is an ongoing and continuous
process. The committee debated whether or not they should prioritize each and
every one of these tactics and individually ranked and voted and did all kinds
of things but decided that until the academic colleges and the administrative
units on campus ultimately develop their own plans in line with this plan,
that for some units certain things would be a high priority and other things
would not be a high priority. We don’t see every single unit doing every
single tactic. For example, in her Department of Communication, we might see
certain tactics as ones that relate to their future but others would not and
so a lot of different people would be working on them. What might look like
conflicting goals, the committee talked about that for a long time and the
idea of raising the standards but also increasing enrollments seems like they
might be in conflict but if we really look at all the possible ways we can
increase enrollment – through retention, through different kinds of marketing,
different kinds of targeting marketing, focusing more on the adult student
in different ways – there are ways that, yes, we believe as a committee
that we can increase enrollment and also slowly raise our standards. We debated
them but we did not see them in conflict. The trick of going forward is reaching
high on all of these fronts. This is a long range plan and it is an ongoing
process. So, when we come back to Senate, somebody else will be chair next
year. Whoever comes back to Senate next year to report on the progress of the
plan, if it is ratified, will give a report on how we have progressed on each
goal, each strategy, the tactics, etc. At that time, it will be a plan that
we will all be more familiar with and she would think we would be able to say,
we need to change this or we need to go in a different direction and it will
be a constant process. We are hoping that it is not going to be a plan that
sits on the shelf and we forget what it is. The committee is mandated to bring
it back to the Senate every fall.

Professor Barbara Hoffman asked, “If we ratify the goals and the strategies
today, but not the tactics, what happens to these tactics and who does what
with this plan after today?”

Professor Susan Hill responded that the Committee still has a lot of work
to do as a committee. The committee just put together some suggested metrics.
A full blown system of metrics has to be developed. Some plans that we viewed
from other universities have champions in the university who are responsible
for certain aspects of the plan. Last fall we had the units’ vision but
we didn’t have the units’ strategic plans because there wasn’t
an over-arching plan so the committee hoped that units would go about setting
their plans. For example, the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences hopefully
can develop a plan that falls within this plan and the School of Communication
can develop a plan that falls within that plan so we are all going in the same
direction. The committee still has a lot of work to do but figured before they
did that, they needed an okay that we were going in the right direction and
this plan could be ratified and could go forward. We used the terms strategies
and tactics last fall at our first session. The idea of a strategy is doing
the right things and so we see our strategies as doing the right things to
accomplish our goals and we see the tactics as doing things right. We might
find when we get in there that there are other tactics that are better. We
might find that some of the tactics don’t work, but we really focused
on these tactics; we really studied them. Where did these tactics come from?
These tactics came from you; they came from the university – from all
the units in the entire university. The committee worked on them and they had
other units – students, alumni, community respond to them. Then the committee
modified them. A Dean said to her (Dr. Hill), “I think my college can
fit into this plan. I see our college in this plan.” Professor Hill responded
to that Dean, “It came from your college; it came from all of the colleges.
That’s why it doesn’t look like a strange plan.”

Senate President Gelman explained a little more of what the Academic Steering
Committee thought. If the tactics are not ratified, the tactics are still in
the document. Any faculty member, any committee, anybody in the administration
could decide to take action based on the tactics. Steering feared that if we
simply ratified the entire package the tactics would all apply. One of the
tactics for example is, “use e-learning for all remedial education.” Maybe
that is a good idea, maybe it isn’t. Obviously, it is something that
has to be studied which is the starting point. If we ratified the tactics and
somebody decided to act on that recommendation, when we come to the Curriculum
Committee and say, “Well, of course, you are not bound but the Senate
has, after all, endorsed this tactic,” since the Senate wouldn’t
have studied the tactic, we thought that was not an appropriate starting point
but nothing would prevent the chair of the Curriculum Committee from waking
up one morning and saying, “We have got to make all remedial education
e-learning” and the proposal would then stand or fall on its merits.
The Strategic Plan would have inspired it but there would be no thought that
there was any kind of predetermination or assumption.

Professor Barbara Hoffman commented that if she has understood correctly,
it appears to her that what the Academic Steering Committee is asking Senate
to do is to relinquish the Senate’s oversight over the specific actions
that are actually going to move the University forward. She strongly advised
that Senate not follow that strategy.

Professor Leo Jeffres commented, “Or is it that we are approving the
broad plan and the process and expecting those tactics as suggestions for the
appropriate bodies to consider and that those decisions do come back to the
Senate at the appropriate time?”

Senate President Gelman confirmed that the tactics are suggestions.

Professor Leo Jeffres noted that we aren’t going to get into the details
at this point. Relinquishing is not how he would look at it. He would look
at it as more of suggestions since he doesn’t see a vote here of relinquishing
but we are saying that we are not going to deal with the details at this point
but we are going to approve the broad goals and objectives and expect the appropriate
bodies to look at these tactics as possibilities but not the blueprint because
we would be getting into the micro managing, if you will, of the appropriate
committees that have to report back here anyway. He asked, “Is that another
way of putting it?” He added that the word “relinquish” scares
him a bit.

Professor Barbara Hoffman stated that the word “relinquish” scares
her as well. She is wondering, without having had the opportunity to study
the tactics in detail, whether it is the place that all of these tactics will
result in action that would be under the oversight of one of our standing committees.

Professor Susan Hill stated that clearly some of them will not. Some of them
are clearly tactics designed for the administration. Starting a $50 million
capital campaign is not something the Senate actually decides to do. That is
the prerogative of the administration of the University, so, there are things
that fall within the administrative unit. This was a collaborative committee
between administrators and faculty. We had five faculty elected by the Faculty
Senate Steering Committee and five administrators appointed personally by the
University President. The Committee worked for one and a half years collaboratively
raising the issues that affected administrative action and faculty action.
No faculty decision that needs a Senate vote or Senate study can go forward
without following the process of governance of faculty. That is why the Committee
did specifically add that one tactic in there so that it was stated in the
report. The idea is that some of these are things that the administration can
do anyway; there is a plan for us all to follow together. Those of you who
have been here a while know that plans pop up. You know when there is a new
plan and nobody knows where it came from. Well, you know where this one came
from. Senate created the process, Senate elected half of the members and every
year Senate will receive a report of how it’s going. It is a faculty
administrative collaborative process. There are things that the faculty can
do independently, there are things academic departments and colleges can do,
there are things various administrative offices can do and it’s trying
to give us a plan that we can keep shaping and moving and following as we go
forward. Even when President Schwartz leaves, even when administrators leave,
the plan should serve as a guide for us to go forward in a trusting manner
with no surprises by administration creating a plan or faculty creating a plan.
This plan we will continue to work on together. This has been an extraordinary
committee and an extraordinary effort at collaboration. Professor Susan Hill
thanked the Committee.

Professor Joel Finer stated that some of these tactics don’t seem very
controversial and some of these tactics could be controversial. He suggested
that it would be helpful to the senators to identify the non-controversial
ones and perhaps ratify or endorse those.

Senate President Gelman commented in response to Professor Barbara Hoffman’s
statement that the Senate would be losing this opportunity to influence the
direction of the University. Senate President Gelman said that the Senate could
possibly influence the direction of the University through a debate about all
of the tactics. That is certainly possible but, if you think about this in
a hard cold division of powers in the University sense, that is not likely.
Suppose we were opposed to a capital campaign. He stated that he is sure nobody
is, but suppose we were and the Senate said we are striking the capital campaign
tactic. What difference would that make to President Schwartz? We could not
erase the suggestion from his mind. It is not within our power to decide that
there shouldn’t be a capital campaign. That is something committed to
the administration. So President Schwartz presumably will go forward. We could
say, “Well, it wasn’t in the strategic plan but the answer would
be, it doesn’t matter.” He went on to say that if there were areas
university-wide that senators wanted to discuss, various focused ways to do
so could be arranged; there could possibly be conversations with the Strategic
Planning Committee in the future. He continued stating that he didn’t
think Senate was giving up anything. We are giving up one conversation but
that doesn’t preclude other conversations. It is just like putting something
in the plan that would not bind the Senate committees. So we could put all
remedial learning as e-learning in the plan but the Curriculum Committee and
the Senate would still not be bound to do that. Putting something into the
plan or taking it out of the plan doesn’t bind the university administration
either.

Professor William Bowen stated that he doesn’t see any of these goals
or strategies as being the least bit offensive. They all seem like they are
ones of a university that is striving for excellence and would try to hold
out there as something to achieve and he wished the Senate could just ratify
the goals and strategies and get on with it. Senate President Gelman replied
that this is the motion that is on the floor of Senate.

Professor Peter Meiksins commented that at least personally it was not his
intention to indicate that by making that recommendation he would personally
approve all of the goals and strategies. He was doing this, irrespectively
of his personal feelings, because Steering doesn’t get to decide, the
Senate does. The Steering Committee suggested that the plan be brought forward
to Faculty Senate for discussion and to be advised of the goals and strategies,
whether or not these goals and strategies are ratified. He stated that he is
not a voting member of the Senate. There are goals and strategies not included
in this plan that he would like to see in there and there are goals in the
plan worded in a such way that he would not have chosen. Whether he would vote
against it or for it actually is moot and would be an open question in his
own mind but the idea was to have discussion of the goals and strategies which
we have not yet had. Now maybe people would not need that but we have been
discussing the procedure and not the actual goals and strategies which were
the intent of the Steering Committee.

Senate President Gelman responded that the way it is structured, Steering
has presented the plan for ratification.

Professor Heidi Robertson stated that it makes a lot of sense to do it this
way – to approve the strategies and goals. We arrived at them through
a university process and we are not really relinquishing control because we
are expressly not putting the Faculty Senate’s stamp of approval on the
tactics and thus allowing the various pieces of the university almost to choose
what has been presented to us which seems like almost a menu of choices of
tactics. Since none of them is binding, each unit could choose what works for
that unit and what we are approving is what has already come up through the
system. She stated that she is new in the Senate and she doesn’t know
whether there has been a substantive discussion of the goals and tactics but
she does know that each college discussed them on the way up and it has been
presented to us by our own Steering Committee. She then moved that the Senate
approve the goals and strategies.

Professor Jeffrey Dean asked if it is not true that in a year’s time
when this report is presented again, that if Senate decided for some reason
that we didn’t like strategy C under goal 3, the Senate at that time
could vote to modify this document so it is not a permanent relinquishing of
oversight of what goes on. Senate President Gelman indicated that Professor
Dean was correct.

Professor Leo Jeffres commented that he sees an advantage here. There is
actually going to be an accounting of the report. This place is not used to
that. He has headed a couple of task forces over the years and their reports
just were put on some shelf. The idea that someone is coming back to say what
progress has been made to the full Senate and thus for public review will be
an advantage on each of these as opposed to something that only gets into a
small body where the representatives from the different parts of the university
may or may not be disseminating it. Whoever is going to do that report is going
to be doing a service. He hopes that this report is going to get a wide distribution.

Senate President Gelman replied that having read the planning report he can
say that this was a major goal of those who designed the Strategic Planning
Process.

At this point, Senate President Gelman stated that since he presented the
proposal from the Academic Steering Committee, he can’t preside over
the vote. Professor Teresa LaGrange will do so.

Professor Teresa LaGrange asked for those in favor of accepting the motion
from the Academic Steering Committee to adopt the goals and strategies in the
Strategic Planning Document to say aye. The Academic Steering Committee’s
proposal to adopt the goals and strategies in the Strategic Planning Document
was approved unanimously.

IX. University President’s Report

President Michael Schwartz began by thanking Professor Susan
Hill and the Strategic Planning Committee members for an enormous
planning effort which was very well carried out. It is a fine
document and as good a plan as he has seen anywhere. It is likely
to carry us forward in all kinds of ways. The way the plan is
structured, it will be a pleasure for everyone.

President Schwartz welcomed everyone back. He said that he
was sorry about Euclid Avenue. There is not much that we can
do about that. President Schwartz noted that Fenn Tower and the
new Recreation Center have been opened. He commented that if
anyone has not had a chance to visit Fenn Tower, brief tours
are available and he urged everyone to go over and see it. The
restoration is just beautiful. For anyone who may have at one
time worked in Fenn Tower, they really ought to see it now.

President Schwartz reported on enrollment. We are virtually
dead even with one year ago. The composition is a little different.
The average high school GPA of entering freshmen rose to about
2.96. It had been 2.84. The average SAT score grew by about .08
of a point from 19.01 to 19.081. We took slightly fewer new freshmen
this year than we did last year. In the process of implementing
the first important phase of the new admissions standards, about
150 students were rejected. New transfer students, however, grew
by about 18 percent. We have stayed flat with one year ago. He
stated that in his opinion, that is the good news. Graduate enrollment
has held their own or better.

President Michael Schwartz reported that last week, Cleveland
State University led a team to Columbus to present a proposal
for a Wright Center of Innovation Grant from the state of Ohio.
The Grant amount is $23 million which is for a state-wide collaboration
in sensor technology. The partners in this include corporations
from Cleveland to Columbus to Dayton to Cincinnati as well as
Case Western Reserve University, Akron, Ohio State University,
UC. They are all in this collaboration along with NASA and the
Air Force Research Laboratory in Dayton and the Ohio Aerospace
Institute here in Cleveland. Bringing that kind of group together
was an enormous undertaking. It is a very complicated matter
to write a proposal in sensor technology that would achieve the
aims of this broad group. It was achieved largely through very
great efforts of Vice Provost Mark Tumeo and Dean Charles Alexander
of the College of Engineering. The grant writer known to many
of you is Miss Lisa Camp who was more than a little helpful.
This is a competition. We survived to the final three. We are
competing with 200 finalists and we don’t know how many
of these centers the State will fund. We should know the outcome
of this competition in November. President Schwartz said that
he would feel better about this if it weren’t after the
election but that is when the selection is going to be made.
But, win or lose, we can be proud of the great effort to become
competitive in this effort.

President Schwartz noted that there was a hearing last week
in Columbus and the National Academy of Science appointed a board
that is the hearing board for this grant and they heard the three
finalists’ proposals. At the hearing for our proposal,
the walls in the fairly large room where all the chairs are were
taken and the walls were lined with people who were standing
in order to observe the questioning that was going on. Most of
those people were the corporate partners. The corporate partners
jumped in to answer questions and showed great support for this
CSU proposal. The people who presented the proposal – Vice
Provost Mark Tumeo, Dr. Norman Tien from Case Western Reserve
University who was the technical expert on this proposal, and
Mr. Don Mater from the Ohio Aerospace Institute, this was a moment
of great pride for Cleveland State University. Five years ago,
CSU was seen as an underdog. That isn’t true any longer.
In terms of the National Science Foundation rankings of universities,
rankings by research expenditures, CSU is past Kent State and
it is on the way up in those rankings. That is all the more remarkable
considering how few doctoral programs we have. There is a great
deal to be proud of at this institution. This effort, win or
lose, is an important milestone for us. It says in effect, Cleveland
State can play with the big kids. What it really says is that
Cleveland State is one of the big kids. This is very important
for us.

President Schwartz reported that the administration has spent
a great deal of time the last year working on plans for enrollment
strategies and tactics along with two consulting companies. From
all of that effort, a document called the “Road Map” has
been developed for enrollment growth and retention and that is
our main concern. The focus of the retention effort is student
success in an environment of high expectations and high standards.
In that regard, he has asked Professor Elizabeth Lehfeldt to
take on the task of being the Special Assistant to the President
for Student Success. He has asked her to do that on a part-time
basis beginning this term and she has agreed. She and the President
will be creating an All-University Presidential Commission on
University Success with representation from each college unit
and from a cadre of assistant and associate deans as well as
from student leadership. She will, from time to time, keep everyone
apprised of the progress of that commission and other similar
efforts. If we look at the Strategic Plan, it calls for us to
do exactly that. President Schwartz noted that he has also asked
Professor Rodger Govea to share the duties of that position with
Professor Lehfeldt on a part-time basis upon his return from
sabbatical leave and he has tentatively agreed to do that as
well. Both of these professors are broadly respected and they
are understood to have students and student success at the forefront
of their personal agendas so he knows that everyone will wish
them well in this very important initiative. He intends to be
their closest partner so when they speak on the matter of student
success, they are going to speak with the President’s voice.
It is important for that to be understood.

In a similar regard, President Schwartz has initiated some
organizational changes in other ways. Enrollment Services now
reports to Vice President Droney as does the Career Services
Center. Vice President Droney, Vice President Spiker and Mr.
Steve Minter, who is an executive in residence, have been leading
the enrollment planning effort and that effort will continue
throughout the year. He is going to recommend to the Board of
Trustees that Vice President Droney’s title be changed
to Vice President for Information and General Administration.
At the same time, Advising has been moved from Student Affairs
to Academic Affairs and it will be overseen by the Provost and
the Deans in an effort to bring the advising activity much closer
to the departments and especially to the students and their needs.
He is currently assessing oversight of remedial work in English
and Mathematics to see where that can best be located. His preference
is that those functions be put into the departments. The Interim
Provost, Mary Jane Saunders and the President will discuss this
at some length. A dozen classrooms have been improved with technology
and, in spite of campus construction, every effort is being made
to be attendant to the instructional needs of the faculty and
the students. President Schwartz noted that some days are easier
than others.

Finally, President Michael Schwartz commented that if everyone
can get a copy of a magazine called “Washington Monthly
Magazine” that magazine has gotten into the college and
university rankings business and they have been highly critical
of “US News and World Report” rankings. So they are
trying to build a system for ranking that takes out inputs – endowments,
rich kids, and they have been using things like student mobility
which is to say how many of your students who have Pell Grants
in fact graduate? What have you done for the neediest kids? Public
service, how many of your students go into the Peace Corps and
how many go into the Military? It is a very interesting criterion.
You will find none of them in “US News and World Report.” We
don’t fare bad in this but we have a long way to go to
climb even in their rankings in our graduation rate. We have
taken steps to make that better.

X. New Business

A. Recreation Center Fees
(Report No. 3, 2006-2007)

Professor Andrew Gross thanked Senate for the opportunity to
discuss the Recreation Center fees and related arrangements.
He noted that he has been at CSU since 1968 when workouts for
faculty, staff and students consisted of finding your way among
the Quonsets huts and then in the 1970s we built the Woodling
Gym and what is now the Busbey Natatorium that functioned well.
It has basketball courts, an indoor track, squash courts, etc.
There was also a shared locker room in the sub basement for faculty
and physical education majors. A while ago, Alice Khol instituted
an ID swiping policy and he questioned her on that on the Faculty
Senate floor and now he wishes publicly to apologize because
the swiping has not created long lines.

Secondly, Professor Andrew Gross praised Vice President for
Finance, Mr. Jack Boyle for instituting a parking fee for outsiders
in the evening who went to the theater. He had suggested a fee
of about $7 or $8 and Jack Boyle insisted on $10 and he is right.
He sees people coming to our facility at the East 17 th Street
Garage. So Jack was right and he was wrong and he apologizes.

The last point in a preface remark is that Dr. Gross likes
to put his money where his mouth is. The only thing important
to him (Professor Andrew Gross) is the free swim at noon in the
Natatorium and that has been so ordained with Wally Morton the
aquatics director and others and in gratitude for that he has
just written a check to CSU designated for the aquatics program.

Professor Gross congratulated Dr. Michael Schwartz and all
others for the vision for construction of the Recreation Center.
He said that instituting fees at the Recreation Center may be
a wise idea and is a good idea but the way it was done and the
way it was communicated may not have been done in the very best
way. He believes that a fee of $315 is being held out for the
faculty and the staff for the whole year and he heard that in
addition, there will be a $90 fee for a locker. That is over
$400. Dr. Gross stated that if you wish to encourage fitness
among faculty and staff, that is a pretty sudden increase and
he would say it is a change in working conditions. But, he is
not here to argue the AAUP filing or not filing of a grievance;
that’s outside the bounds of this Senate so he is not going
to go there. But the way it was communicated and the way it was
arranged, etc., when the $24 locker fee in the sub basement he
referred to earlier wasn’t even collected, it seems to
him a pretty high jump in the fee structure. The result of matters
ultimately will depend on a single word that his communist friend
still uses; it is called electricity. You raise the price, how
many people will respond? It remains to be seen. He noted that
Professor Sheldon Gelman was kind enough to take hearing and
sounding from fellow Ohio Faculty Council representatives and
he tells Dr. Gross that other schools have about the $300 fee
for athletics over the year. Youngstown State is somewhat lower.
He also checked on municipal recreation centers and yesterday
he was in Middleburg Heights. He lives on the East side but he
was on the West side. He had a passport to cross the Cuyahoga
and he can report that Middleburg Heights has an adult fee of
about $135 and that includes pretty much an inside water park
and swimming pool and community center, etc. In his own city
of Cleveland Heights at its new recreation center, it basically
offers skating, swimming, outdoors in the summer, and an indoor
track and other facilities for somewhere between $200 and $300
for adults. For seniors, it is under $100 per year so it is a
great bargain. So, he is a pretty happy warrior but he is here
at Senate once again as he was as an Assistant Professor untenured
fighting for others and he believes that the fight is worth doing
and he would like to hear from Mr. Boyle in regard to how shall
we proceed with this and how heavy the enrollment has been.

Professor Emerita Barbara Green, a representative of the Retired
Faculty Association, asked if Mr. Jack Boyle or somebody else
would please inform the retired and emeriti faculty of their
opportunity to join this program. They were not included in the
first notices about their eligibility for membership in the athletic
facilities and lockers, etc. Mr. Jack Boyle responded that the
retired faculty and emeriti are included.

Mr. Jack Boyle addressed Professor Andrew Gross’ comments.
Because we have had an official grievance filed by the AAUP on
the very topic that Professor Gross raised, he felt that it would
be inappropriate for him to discuss the specifics because that
was exactly what the request was in the grievance that was filed.
He has had extensive conversations with Professor Gross who has
several emails that he may wish to share with other members.
There is a process under the union contract that will respond.

Senate President Gelman reiterated that Mr. Jack Boyle explained
that there is a union grievance which substantially overlaps
the substance of Professor Gross’ remarks and that prevents
Vice President Boyle from responding now. He has explained that
he has had email exchanges with Professor Gross. Professor Gross
is free to share the contents of those emails.

Professor Andrew Gross asked Vice Jack President Boyle, as
a point of information, “What is the number of full-time
faculty and staff who enrolled at the Recreation Center providing
the university with the appropriate check taking for the membership?” Vice
President Boyle responded that he can’t divide into faculty
and staff but our goal was to get 165 members the first year
which would be fifteen percent of the full-time faculty and staff.
We have 121 as of today ( September 13, 2006).

B.Proposed Amendment to the Missed Class Policy

(Report No. 4, 2006-2007)

Professor Candice Hoke said that she was not exactly sure what
procedure to follow about introducing or asking for suspension
of the rules sent out to faculty and also distributed for taking
up a policy. She believes that Professor Gelman had advised her
that a 2/3’s vote was needed to even consider something
of substance.

Senate President Sheldon Gelman reported that Professor Candice
Hoke had informed him at about 11:45 P.M. Monday night by email
that she had a proposal she wanted to present to Senate and off
the top of his head he first said that any Senator can have the
floor during the New Business portion of the meeting. The next
day he looked into the official Senate copy of “Robert’s
Rules of Order” and at that point it had appeared to him
that any change or addition to the Agenda required a 2/3’s
vote. He had talked to two people who have considerable experience
either as a presiding officer here or as a parliamentarian and
they did not agree on the 2/3’s vote requirement. The details
of the disagreement do not matter. Senate President Gelman said
his advice to Professor Hoke that it had to be raised at this
point was wrong. He noted that Professor Hoke could have moved
to amend the Agenda. Had she done that, the Senate certainly
could have heard it based on a majority vote. So, while he is
going to ask the University Faculty Affairs Committee to look
into this problem of the rules for the future, he would rule
that a new item can be added to the Agenda by Professor Hoke
if a majority agreed to add it to the Agenda. Professor Hoke
has a substantive motion that she would like the Senate to approve
which would change university policy and which would have to
be forwarded to the university administration as any other measure
that passes the Senate would.

Professor Candice Hoke stated that she had distributed a motion
for a proposed amendment to the Missed Class Policy. She apologized
for the short notice. Normally, such a proposal for a policy
change, even for a very short-term policy change, would have
gone to the appropriate Senate Committee first and the administration
and there would have been time for everyone to reflect on and
modify the proposal. But, there was no time in this situation.
She would argue to Senate that there is a high public educational
purpose behind this particular proposal. We do have a policy
in existence in this University called the Missed Class Policy
that was worked on over a period of years. Unfortunately, when
students look at this policy and have been approached about being
poll workers for Cuyahoga County in particular in the coming
election, they expressed great concern that they will receive
penalties from classes, that it’s a matter of long negotiation,
that there is no security that they will be allowed to participate,
and they need and want the clarification up front now. Also,
the Board of Elections needs the clarification before they invest
the money in training the people, needs to know that students
can participate and will be released from classes, and that there
will not be some assignment that students are fearful of later
on. So the proposal is reflecting on the situation that we find
ourselves in as internationally notorious for a poor election
performance. Recognizing that, this University actually encompasses
between it and its furthest east-most parking lots the Board
of Elections so we have incredible proximity. This University
has invested itself in many ways to try to support quality elections
but this is a time when we need to step up. She would ask for
suspension of the rules to consider this motion in principle.
Again, it is not for a permanent policy change – it is
only for this election for this particular period of time from
the evening before the election through Election Day, November
6 and 7, 2006.

Senate President Gelman noted that Professor Hoke’s motion
has already been seconded. We can now discuss the motion which
is to add this item to the Agenda. If it is added to the Agenda,
we can discuss it on merits, and barring some other motion, proceed
to adopt it or reject it. Senate President Gelman asked if there
was any discussion to add this item to the Agenda. Hearing no
discussion, Senate President Gelman asked for all those Senators
who were in favor of adding the item to the Agenda to say aye.
The motion was approved.

Senate President Gelman stated that Senate now has before it
the proposal for excused absences for poll workers. He noted
that a motion is needed to adopt this proposal. It was then moved
and seconded that Senate adopt the proposed amendment to the
Missed Class Policy.

Professor Sylvester Murray noted that Senate President Gelman
had indicated that the interest is for two days, November 6 and
7, 2006 but he had said earlier that the poll workers have to
be trained also. He then asked if the workers would be trained
on November 6 and 7. Professor Candice Hoke responded that poll
workers can go to weekend training. They will be scheduled so
profusely that training should not present any problem.

Professor William Beasley commented that he was a little fuzzy
about the statement that this is the only Senate meeting where
this proposal could be considered. He noted that he is entirely
in favor of having our students work in this process. That part
is terrific. If he read this proposal correctly, the training
needs to be completed by the 20 th of October 2006. Faculty will
need to be notified by the 20 th of October that students were
fulfilling this. He said that he didn’t understand why
the Admissions and Standards Committee couldn’t take this
up at their next meeting, bring it to Steering and then bring
it before the Senate in time for the Senate to follow regular
procedure with respect to the motion.

Professor Hoke responded that this is because the lead time
for scheduling individuals for training and deciding who is going
to fill the poll worker positions is going to be occurring during
the next three weeks. The CSU Center for Election Integrity is
the monitor for election performance and will conduct a review
of the pilot project and file a report with the appropriate committees.
Our suggestion is that a number of poll workers who have either
proven or suspected to be less than quality performers will not
be called back but if those people cannot be replaced with others,
they will be called back. Poll workers in this county have been
hired and have been engaged at the polling places on the warm
body principle and that is, by law, we have to have two separate
parties represented at the polling place, four people minimally
in each precinct and that means they have to simply get a warm
body. Even if they are asleep, that works so we have three weeks.
College and university students, faculty and staff are considered
some of the absolute best people because we are in learning mode,
we are analytic by nature in the training and we are the force
for repopulating the polling places and so it is a timing issue.

Senate President Gelman reported that Professor Rosemary Sutton,
chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, telephoned him
before this meeting and asked him to say that the Admissions
and Standards Committee is meeting on September 22, 2006. Of
course there is no guarantee that the Admissions and Standards
Committee would complete action on this proposal at that meeting.
But, if they did, it would be timely and go to Steering on September
27, 2006 and would be on the Agenda for the October 11, 2006
Faculty Senate meeting. That is the quickest that it could happen.

Professor Candice Hoke said that unfortunately that is too late.
Part of the trouble that was well documented this summer in the
Election Review Panel’s investigation is that the lead
time to be able to qualify people and to train them is significant
so unfortunately, we don’t have that time.

Professor Joel Finer commented on the language of the proposal.
He inquired if Professor Hoke meant that students are excused
from assignments, quizzes and other work due and that means that
the due date should be later. Professor Hoke replied that if
you are excused from work and if students are supposed to show
up in class with work that day, they are excused from that but
it is in light of the kind of policy that we already have which
is that the faculty and the student talk about what work is going
to be due and when it’s due. It is not mandated in this
proposal. It’s just that the student still has to complete
all of the work. The October 20 th deadline is so that there
would be enough lead time for the student to have learned that
he/she is going to qualify. An interesting little development
is that there will be tests now for poll workers after their
training and so when they find out whether they have passed,
they can then negotiate with the faculty member well in advance.

Professor Joel Finer noted that on November 6, it literally
says excused from assignments or doing the papers.

Professor Kenneth Sparks reported that he had originally worked
on the Missed Class Policy and it was from this body that really
said that the strong language is required and excuses had to
be changed and softened from the original policy. Students were
not excused from the assignments where they didn’t have
to do them. Other language had to be used. Maybe this might be
a little bit better if the language were a little softer where
the students are not excused from laboratories or assignments
but given every possible way that they can make things up. But,
the students are not excused from assignments because that was
one of the big issues of Faculty Senate when the Missed Class
Policy was originally put together.

Professor Diane Steinberg stated that this isn’t the issue
of the mechanics. Those can be worked out but rather she wanted
to lend her support to the proposal. It is a great way of involving
the students. Looking over the goals and strategies that were
just passed by Senate, it seems to her that this policy fits
very well under Goal 5: Valued Community Resource, Strategy A:
Maintain and Expand Collaboration and Partnership Activities
and Strategy B: Meet Community’s Educational and Economic
Development Needs. It has been said that elections in this area
are poorly conducted. It’s not a great sounding point.

Professor David Elkins was interested in point 3 in the proposal
where it indicates “The CSU Center for Election Integrity
will conduct a review of the pilot project”. He said that
he would like to see the methods the Center would use to conduct
this pilot project and if it could establish prior to this what
it believes to be a success. For instance, how do we know if
this pilot project has been a success and therefore constitute
a change in the formal procedures?

Professor Candice Hoke responded that what she would propose
that isn’t in the language and is not clarified here is
that the Committees that would be wanting to receive the report
could help to identify the metrics and the aspects that they
want particularly studied, whether they want faculty to be surveyed,
whether they want interviews, whether they want just reports
from students – all of this would be negotiated later.
It would not be, “our judgment” as a Center as to
whether this is a success or not. It would be the committees’ judgment.
We would just be bringing forward the data that the particular
committees requested. That would be our commitment to Senate
so that Senate could see this as an ongoing educational activity
and assess whether we want to make any long-term changes. It
would be premature for us to suggest what those metrics would
be right now.

In response to an earlier question, Professor Hoke noted that
as far as the excused assignments, keep in mind that 1 and 2
would apply and any CSU student who desires to exercise this
option would have to arrange to make up the work that is due
and the last sentence of number 2 says, “At all times the
responsibility for making up coursework rests with the student.” She
suggested inserting after the word coursework, “on due
dates mutually agreeable rests with the student.”

Professor Hoke suggested that the language be amended to say, “that
to encompass and respond to the concerns” because that
would mean that if the student and the faculty member have agreed
that the work has to come in before, it has to come in before
the particular election date. If it comes in later, it is still
later but it is a matter of agreement in negotiation which is
in the spirit of the existing Missed Class Policy.

Senate President Gelman asked Professor Hoke to restate the
suggested amendment and then asked whether the seconder will
accept it.

Professor Hoke stated that the last sentence of number 2 with
her amendment would read, “At all times the responsibility
for making up coursework according to the schedule mutually agreed
between the student and the faculty member rests with the student.” Professor
Hoke went on to say that this does not mean that the student
will be released in the sense of being excused, but keep in mind
that there are faculty who decide that work is going to be due
in the classroom on such and such a day and, if that day is on
election day and that student cannot show up and present that
work at that time, the idea is that it needs the flexibility
with the faculty member to decide. She asked, “Must the
work come in earlier or is it admissible later?”

Senate President Gelman asked the seconder if he would accept
Professor Hoke’s change. Professor Jeff Dean stated that
it seems that the confusion is the connection of the excuse from
class attendance and the excuse from the assignment. So, rather
than the proposal that was just made, he suggested that it would
be better to separate things at that initial point in 1 and say: “(a)
to excuse from class attendance during the period…, and
b) to allow such students to make up any assignments, quizzes,
or other work otherwise due during this period, as specified
under point 2 (below).” Professor Candice Hoke accepted
Professor Dean’s suggestion as a friendly amendment.

Professor William Beasley said that he was concerned about adopting
a whole separate policy here. He asked, “Do we have the
power to designate this as a university authorized activity?” because
the policy on Missed Classes specifically says that it recognizes
participation in university authorized activities and apparently
some of the confusion on the part of the students stems from
whether or not a poll worker is a university authorized activity
that would allow them to legitimately miss class and make up
the work.

Professor Hoke responded that this was certainly true. Part
of the other problem though is that greater clarity is needed
here and this policy probably does need greater clarity as far
as procedures that students need to follow. Right now, if Senate
does enact the kind of policy with the amendments that we have
outlined, then the university has the ability to immediately
say publicly, “This is the commitment of CSU. We have passed
this policy from the Faculty Senate.” She went on to say
that President Schwartz gets to talk about what his commitment
is in the university administration and things can move like
clockwork. Without that, it is a series of steps in individual
negotiations that are going to be more cumbersome and time consuming
and the impediments will be there. So, she understands the concerns
absolutely. She just has to say to Senate that we are in an imperative
situation and it needs to be addressed.

Professor Sanda Kaufman stated that she liked this proposal
but she is wondering, how do we know that the students went?
Is there a provision that we would know that they did this? Professor
Hoke responded that part of the policy that she did not read
into the record states, “Official documentation will be
forthcoming from the Board of Elections.”

Professor Cheryl McCahon asked if she should assume, when looking
at the form that is used, that the administrator would have the
right, if the student was not in good standing, to not give that
permission? Professor Hoke replied, “No.” This would
be across the board. She did not include anything else. If Professor
McCahon would like to make a friendly amendment because she is
concerned about that, she (Professor Hoke) would certainly consider
it. Professor McCahon stated that she was thinking of some of
the people who just mentioned that the students just want the
day off and they do have to make up things but the issue becomes
the students in good standing are probably the ones that would
want to do this. There would also be students who try to take
advantage of it. Dr. McCahon added that the proposal is a great
idea but she worries especially in the clinical courses when
there are only a certain number of clinical days and she would
be willing to have faculty say, “Yes, they can be excused
if they are in good standing.”

Professor Candice Hoke said that she understands what Professor
Cheryl McCahon is suggesting and if Professor McCahon would like
to make a friendly amendment to add that in, that is certainly
fine. The only point that she would mention is that many other
kinds of activities that are encompassed and contemplated by
the Missed Class Policy seem to be ones that are ongoing or commitments,
whereas this is a one shot deal, absolutely one shot and they
will have to know by October 20 th if they are scheduled or not.
The students who failed their poll worker test will not be authorized
and scheduled which is another reason why this is so important
because it is expected that there will be many people who will
fail the test.

An unidentified Senator asked for clarification. We are not
asking here that this be made a university authorized activity.
We are simply saying that in this particular instance, doing
this work on this day, is something that would be treated in
the same way that a university authorized activity would be treated
relative to absences and make-up work, etc. So, she believes
that this issue is being raised as to whether or not the university
is going to put this on the list of approved or authorized activities
but she doesn’t have that impression. It seems to her that
what Professor Hoke is saying is to allow this to happen and
use the same procedure for it that we use for university authorized
activities.

Professor Candice Hoke asked if President Michael Schwartz could
explain.

President Michael Schwartz indicated that he was not quite sure
if he heard it clearly, but if she (unidentified Senator) is
asking if this is a university authorized activity, it doesn’t
need to be. All we need to say is that this is a process that
we will apply to the Missed Class Policy just as we would students
missing classes because of athletic competition or something
else. However, having said that, from a personal point of view,
he can think of nothing better than to say that this is a university
authorized activity but he doesn’t want to force that.

Senate President Gelman stated that we now have a proposal that
has been amended several times, a proposal dealing with student
absences from class when students work as poll workers during
the upcoming election that is a pilot program, and asked Senators
if they were ready to vote on the amended proposal to amend the
Missed Class Policy. The proposed amended amendment to the Missed
Class Policy incorporating Poll Worker Absences was unanimously
approved.